Discusión

Educational research, situated in the social constructionist, qualitative paradigm deals with human beings and human interactions situated in a community. The researcher, as is the case in my project, is often at the heart of the research too. Inevitably, perhaps, there were limitations in the project as originally conceived and in its execution. Referring back to the issue of trustworthiness considered in the previous section, I do not believe that the outcomes of the research are invalidated by the limitations but it is, however, important to be open in any research report about the nature of those limitations.

3.13.1 Sample

I have already justified the choice of a convenience or purposive sample (in Section 3.8.1). It could, however, be argued that trustworthiness, rigor and quality in qualitative paradigm, in choosing the convenience sample, I did I was limiting sample spread and diversity. However Creswell (2007) indicates that in

148 qualitative research it is not always necessarily helpful to have a large sample, particularly if the research intention is not to generalise, but to inform.

My professional role as a university lecturer and PGCE trainer, in addition to my existing relationships with the sample schools was a potential limitation. I have addressed the constraints this may have imposed on the teachers, particularly those I may have trained, and the issues of power inequality that may have arisen. I do not believe that these presented as problems, but I was aware when coding to be mindful of leading questions and the less overt cues I may have given (Pring, 2000) during interviews. I have aimed to be transparent at these possible effects on the trustworthiness of the data in reporting the data.

3.13.2 Neutrality

One particular limitation linked to my relationship within the sample schools may have been sustaining neutrality. Since my intention was to give voice to the opinions of both the teachers and the students in the sample, the extent of my ability to be neutral was, in any case, arguable and indeed the value of complete researcher neutrality was questionable. Although my intention was to illuminate or act simply as an advocate for a particular viewpoint (Pring, 2000), I may, as a university researcher, have been perceived as a gatekeeper to developing understanding and knowledge myself. I did, however, employ every possible procedure to maintain systematic neutrality in the conduct of the research. I tried to interpret concerns raised in individual interviews into the context of the data from the whole research.

It was also important to be self-reflexive, which is being aware of my own impact on the research and the impact of all my research choices and decisions on both participants and potential interpretations of data. My personal biography, related at the opening to this research, is relevant because participants were likely to be influenced to some degree by their view of me as a university based researcher holding a particular position. There was no simple solution to this except to be mindful of it at all stages of the research and interpretation of the data. I also

149 needed to be transparent about my role in all research encounters with all participants.

3.13.3 Time

Most small scale research projects are time limited, as this project was. There were issues with the point at which the questionnaire was sent out within the context of a busy school year; this may have affected the quantity of returns. However schools are always busy and teachers frequently cite excessive paperwork as a problem: my questionnaire undoubtedly added to a perceived sea of paperwork. Remembering Sapsford and Jupp (1996), a limitation of the study may have been that the teachers did not see my research as directly relevant to them. However it was a choice to investigate perceptions; change cannot come without information and a greater understanding of the problem. It was not possible to problematize the idea of quality in the qualitative model of research that I proposed.

In hindsight the initial open question on the questionnaire relating to quality may have been too closely allied to the curriculum in asking for definitions of quality in books for students in KS3 and KS4. However this did not seem to influence the range of responses and did tie in with earlier questions about use of books in the classroom.

There were also time constraints on the interviews themselves. Any research situated in an educational situation is likely to be bounded by institutional constraints. When agreeing to take part in the research, schools were told approximately how long was required for each interview. However I was the visitor and dependent on the school for access to participants. At each school there were unavoidable changes to the proposed schedule for interviews; some were curtailed. Although regrettable, I do not believe it affected the quality of the interviews since the nature of the semi-structured interview schedule allowed me to adapt to changing circumstances and focus on key issues.

150 Whilst triangulation is a valuable tool to ensure trustworthiness, nevertheless the anonymous questionnaire data have been a tool to use to check the authenticity of opinions expressed in the interviews. Supervisors were valuable, in the role of critical friends, in providing coding checks and discussing judgements.

Whilst I wished to remain open to the diversity of the 11 – 16 year olds’ reading choices, as (for example, Hall and Coles, 1999; and NLT, 2008), nevertheless I decided to focus this particular research on perceptions of quality in fiction. It remains important to acknowledge diversity of reading choices that students aged 11 – 16 make and to understand that this may not always start with fiction. This may need to be addressed in future research.